2. Contact Info

3. Dealer Selection

It may not be as large in scale or as steeped in tradition as our Car of the Year contest, but more than a few of our editors would argue that Sport/Utility of the Year is the most interesting. In neither Car nor Truck of the Year will you find such a variety of vehicles and technologies all attempting to achieve the same fundamental goal.

Take this year’s crop. The term “running the gamut” is derived from music and can be explained as the entire series of recognized musical notes. Though we don’t have every SUV currently on the market in this contest (all our Of The Year competitions are limited to all-new or significantly revised vehicles), we have just about every type and interpretation represented here. SUVs, crossovers, even “Sport Activity Vehicles.” Body-on-frame and unibody construction. Transverse and longitudinal drivetrains. Front-, rear-, all-, and four-wheel drive. Gasoline, diesel, and hybrid. Solid axles and fully independent suspensions. Coil springs, leaf springs, and air springs. Mass-market, luxury, and niche. Compact, midsize, full-size, and everything in between. This was our second-largest Sport/Utility of the Year competition ever. Nineteen individual contenders and 30 total vehicles were invited to Los Alamos, California, and the Tres Hermanas winery to compete this year. The additional 11 vehicles included available variants of the contenders, primarily to showcase the model’s range and optional powertrains. We do this because Of The Year contests take into consideration and reward the entire model range, not just one really good variant. More often than not, having the complete model range at our disposal reveals strong and weak points and has altered the outcome of more than one contest. This year was no exception.

As in previous years, the competition began with a road loop to weed out the weaker contenders. Each judge drove all 30 vehicles before sitting down to debate and then vote on the finalists — vvehicles we thought had a shot at taking the title. The nine finalists were then driven on longer road loops as well as a 5-mile light off-road course featuring loose, chalky dirt; tight turns; a steep descent; and two challenging hill climbs. At the end, the judges argued for hours over which model best met our six key criteria in its class. The final vote was, as it often is, as close as can be.

“Why am I here?” is perhaps the oldest and most universal philosophical question. For what reason do I exist? While humans have no choice but to continue existing without an answer to this question, that’s not normally the case in business. A product that can’t rationalize its existence generally doesn’t fare well in the market. Lucky for BMW, “because I want it” is all the reason a product needs to be successful, which incidentally is the only reason anyone will buy an X4.

MacKenzie explains: “The tortured logic behind the X4 probably goes something like this: If you think a 3 Series wagon is too carlike, an X3 too much like a boring SUV, a 3 Series Gran Turismo practical but not sporty enough, a 4 Series Gran Turismo sporty but not practical enough, and you definitely don’t want to drive a 3 Series sedan like everyone else, then the X4 is the perfect vehicle for you.”

With such an ambiguous mission statement, it’s no surprise the X4 struggled against our criteria. It’s certainly no value proposition, not when every other vehicle MacKenzie identified starts for several thousand dollars less. Advancement in Design is subjective, but just about everyone in our cadre thought the X6 wore it better, and neither is especially pretty.

The X4 struggled the most in the Engineering Excellence category. The rear seat is uncomfortably low (intentionally, in order to create headroom) and ingress and egress are difficult. Cargo space is heavily compromised in the name of style. Efforts to make the X4 more sporty than the already sporty X3 have resulted mostly in a stiffer ride.

In its favor, the X4 excels in Performance of Intended function, so long as you concede that the base function of any product is to sell in large enough numbers to justify the expense of creating it. While customers who buy style over all else might make a suitable business case, catering to that narrow market does not make the case for a Sport/Utility of the Year.

Contender: BMW X5

By: Scott Evans

We Like: All the luxury features and the diesel engine.

We Don’t Like: Trucklike ride and handling, useless third row.

The X5 finds itself in a tough position. BMW’s original SUV is stuck between segments, struggling to define itself and trying to be all things to all people. It’s a jack-of-all-trades and a master of none.

On the one hand, it’s too large for the sport wagon it’s trying to be. Many editors found it too heavy for the six-cylinder gasoline engine to handle appropriately, and the ride quality and driving experience are too much like a truck-based SUV rather than the car-based “Sport Activity Vehicle” it claims to be. This is especially evident in the V-8-powered truck, which is a riot in a straight line but nowhere near as competent in the corners as its competitors.

On the other hand, it’s too small to be the family-hauling, luxury minivan replacement most customers want it to be. To quote Lago: “Third row is pretty tragic. Takes up cargo area, and isn’t fit for people with legs.” Worse, raising or lowering the class-uncompetitive third row requires removing the shockingly heavy cargo cover, which barely has enough clearance to be removed in the first place. The second row also garnered grumblings for being too tight for an SUV of this size.

In its favor, most judges found the X5 to be well-equipped with all the baubles and features you’d expect from a luxury vehicle, and the materials are appropriately high-quality. The seats, though, left some cold, with the fronts lacking support and the rears sitting too low.

Most editors found the diesel model, equipped with the M Sport package in our case, to be the best option. Editors lauded its powerband, smooth operation, and superior mileage, though one dissenting voice found it less refined and less powerful than the competition. It was also the best-handling X5 on offer.

In total, the X5 is a nice update on the existing truck, but it’s still faced with an unresolved mission. As MacKenzie put it, “Part truck, part sport wagon, all confused.”

We Like: The handsome, park-me-up-front looks. The engine’s pretty sweet.

We Don’t Like: The ride, CUE.

MacKenzie says the Escalade is “the most controversial vehicle Cadillac makes.” His reasoning is that while the rest of Caddy’s lineup shares nothing you can see or touch with the rest of GM’s lineup, the ‘Slade is quite obviously a Tahoe/Yukon all dressed up for the ball. Why would Caddy violate its own best practices? Profits, and massive amounts of them. The Escalade is the most profitable vehicle the General makes, full stop.

But is it any good? Well, according to Loh, “It looks amazing. Love the giant shield up front and floor-to-ceiling taillights.” All of the new big ‘uns from GM are handsome. Figuring out which one is best-looking really depends on the angle. I think the Chevy‘s best from the side and the GMC is best head-on, but the Caddy looks most wowza from the rear. And with that robust 6.2-liter V-8 heart pumping under the massive hood, the back might be the most important angle. Zero to 60 mph in 6.2 seconds from a three-ton vehicle would be laughable if it weren’t so much fun.

Too bad the big boy’s not dynamically more sorted. Loh points out that it shimmies, thanks in no small part to the solid rear axle. Granted we had the “short” wheelbase model.

As Kiino says, “The ride’s pretty rough — give me the ESV!” Even with GM’s normally excellent magnetic dampers, the ride simply wasn’t what we expected from such a luxurious beast. Nor was the handling, but again, it weighs three tons!

Back to luxury for a moment: What an interior. If you’ve been paying attention, you’re aware that since the introduction of the XTS, Cadillac has stepped its interior game way up. The Escalade is now tied with the little ELR as the finest quality American interior, period. You’d have to step up to vehicles such as the Range Rover and the G63 AMG to find SUV interiors more opulent. Perhaps I should say as opulent. Pity about CUE, which many editors deem lousy.

Essentially a shorter-wheelbase Suburban, the Chevy Tahoe earned comparable praise but a bit more criticism than its bigger sibling. With similarly improved styling inside and out to the ‘Burban, the Tahoe found love from judges as one of the most handsome vehicles in its segment. Also like the Suburban’s, the Tahoe’s interior impressed. “Trim for trim, interior in this Tahoe is a whole generation or two nicer than the Expedition,” said Loh. “Feels more luxurious and expensive, even if it isn’t.”

Unfortunately, the Tahoe also shared with its sibling a key letdown: a lethargic gearbox. The outdated six-speed auto seems unable or unwilling to optimize the 5.3-liter EcoTec V-8’s 355 hp and 383 lb-ft of torque. Again, we’re expecting GM’s new eight-speed to find a home here in the not too distant future—we just wish it had arrived sooner. It is to the smaller Tahoe’s advantage that with less weight to move around, it felt a little peppier than the Suburban did on the road.

Our magnetic-ride-equipped Tahoe suffered from a little more body movement over rougher patches of road than the LTZ Suburban did, though both wind and road noise control were still strong. As expected, interior room in the Tahoe is limited compared to the larger Suburban, with the shorter wheelbase affecting the third row and cargo areas the most. Not only is entry and exit to the third row tighter, but legroom is dramatically smaller, limiting the row’s usefulness in carrying adult passengers. There was also significantly less cargo space apparent to judges’ eyes.

The advantages to the shorter Tahoe are maneuverability and price, but neither is much of a compelling argument. During our road loops both Tahoe and Suburban felt equally nimble (for their size, of course), with neither noticeably easier to drive. With a price gap of just less than $3000 between the two models, we’d take the additional capacity of the Suburban every time.

In a field this large and stacked with brand-new, segment-busting SUVs, including four all-new direct competitors, the opening jabs came hard and fast.

“The Expedition just looks so dopey. No real advancement in design — arguably a regression,” said Seabaugh. “Next to GM’s new full-size SUVs the Expedition looks like a relic from another age,” said MacKenzie.

Compared to GM’s all-new Tahoe/Suburban and Yukon/Denali quadruplets, Ford’s 2015 Expedition seems barely warmed-over. Bits of the exterior and interior are new, but nothing advances the ball down the field. Chunky surfaces and agrarian ergonomics constantly recall the Expedition’s F-150 roots. But Ford‘s big ol’ dog surprised with a few new tricks, namely an eager EcoBoost V-6 and six-speed automatic transmission that many preferred over the GM powertrains. A new suspension system features continually variable dampers — a first for Ford (carried over from Lincoln). The three-mode system (Comfort, Normal, Sport) reads 46 different inputs from sensors throughout the vehicle and adjusts compression and rebound accordingly. The result? Ride quality that a few judges preferred over GM’s full-size SUVs and their fancy magnetorheological dampers. Like its platform-mate Lincoln Navigator, the Expedition uses its independent rear suspension to great advantage.

Ford claims best-in-class maximum cargo space for the Expedition EL, along with a low load height and spacious third-row seat. Our judges concurred. “Seats fold flat pretty easily, and I’m amazed that the third row is actually usable for adults. More livable than the Suburban’s for sure!” said Seabaugh.

The problem is that in nearly every other category — and criteria — the GMs were superior. The Expedition lacks integrated collision mitigation systems including adaptive cruise control and lane departure warning.

Markus summed it up best: “I am more impressed with this truck than I was expecting to be, but I still feel that its old bones and lack of top-safety-pick hardware mean it has no chance of winning the calipers.”

2015 Ford Expedition King Ranch EL

BASE PRICE

$63,755

PRICE AS TESTED

$69,780

VEHICLE LAYOUT

Front-engine, 4WD, 7-pass, 4-door SUV

ENGINE

3.5L/365-hp/420-lb-ft turbo V-6

TRANSMISSION

6-speed automatic

CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST)

6319 lb (50/50%)

WHEELBASE

131.0 in

LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT

220.8 x 78.8 x 77.7 in

0-60 MPH

6.5 sec

QUARTER MILE

15.1 sec @ 90.3 mph

BRAKING, 60-0 MPH

121 ft

LATERAL ACCELERATION

0.79 g (avg)

MT FIGURE EIGHT

28.1 sec @ 0.62 g (avg)

EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON

15/21 mpg

CO2 EMISSIONS

1.14 lb/mile

Contender: GMC Yukon

By: Angus Mackenzie

We Like: Classy exterior, upscale interior, quiet cabin.

We Don’t Like: Sluggish powertrain, poor third-row package.

GMC is proof that marketing works. GM’s truck brand once built real trucks, but GMCs today are basically re-badged Chevy pickups and SUVs. Yet the powerful “Professional Grade” advertising tagline has probably convinced more than a few GMC owners they’ve purchased a superior product. As with the new Tahoe, the 2015 Yukon makes a great first impression. The move away from clamshell doors allowed Ed Welburn’s design team to craft a clean, rectilinear profile dominated by a strong shoulder line running from front fender to taillight. This new Yukon looks suitably modern and reassuringly imposing.

Inside, the new interior exudes a contemporary, upscale ambiance, with nicely sculpted forms and well-chosen materials. Fake wood is still there, but it’s used with commendable restraint. GMC IntelliLink’s 8-inch touchscreen and the new 4G LTE OnStar system — both standard across the range — ensure near-hipster levels of connectivity. It’s handsome, packed with goodies, and relatively quiet on the road. But it’s not our Sport/Utility of the Year.

For a vehicle of its size, the Yukon’s third row seating is a joke. The rear floor is raised to clear the live axle suspension, and the third row squabs are located at floor level to ensure adequate headroom. As a result, occupants larger than small children sit with their knees around their ears.

Though it has 355 hp and 383 lb-ft of torque, the 5.3-liter L83 V-8 is disappointingly languid in the 5426-pound Yukon. We recorded a 15.3-second quarter mile during testing but it felt red-faced and out of breath getting there. The calibration of the 6L80 six-speed auto doesn’t help — both upshifts and kickdowns are sluggish. Per Seabaugh, “I can’t help but walk away from the Yukon wondering how much the upcoming eight-speed automatic would improve it.”

The 2015 GMC Yukon is little more than a front clip, four wheels, color and trim, and a couple of badges away from a 2015 Chevy Tahoe. The visual changes are well-executed, but whether they are worth the 3 to 6 percent price premium (depending on the trim level) over an equivalent Tahoe is debatable.

2015 GMC Yukon SLT

BASE PRICE

$55,730

PRICE AS TESTED

$61,320

VEHICLE LAYOUT

Front-engine, RWD, 7-pass, 4-door SUV

ENGINE

5.3L/355-hp/383-lb-ft* OHV 16-valve V-8

TRANSMISSION

6-speed automatic

CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST)

5426 lb (50/50%)

WHEELBASE

116.0 in

LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT

203.9 x 80.5 x 74.4 in

0-60 MPH

6.8 sec

QUARTER MILE

15.3 sec @ 90.7 mph

BRAKING, 60-0 MPH

130 ft

LATERAL ACCELERATION

0.75 g (avg)

MT FIGURE EIGHT

28.0 sec @ 0.62 g (avg)

EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON

16/23/18 mpg

ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY

211/147 kW-hrs/100 miles

CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB

1.05 lb/mile

*SAE certified

Contender: GMC Yukon XL

We Don’t Like: The Suburban gives you the same functionality for less money.

The 2015 GMC Yukon XL is exactly what it says on the tin: the Yukon writ Extra Large. A 14-inch stretch in the wheelbase and 20.4-inch increase in overall length address the fundamental flaw of the regular Yukon: cramped third-row seating. The rear floor is still raised to accommodate the live rear axle, but the wheelbase stretch means GM engineers have been able to sculpt footwells aft of the second row, allowing adults to sit comfortably.

As with the regular Yukon, the XL starts with the base 2WD SLE and stretches to the fully loaded 4WD Denali, a trim level that accounts for more than 60 percent of all Yukon sales. Consumers clearly see it as the bridge between the quotidian Chevy Tahoe/Suburban and the ultra-lux Cadillac Escalade.

The Denali gets a glittery grille and unique 20-inch alloy wheels (22s are available as an option). Inside is upscale leather and (restrained) wood treatments, plus a configurable 8-inch color screen that showcases the connectivity and content streams available via the standard GMC IntelliLink and OnStar 4G LTE systems.

The Denali also gets the Escalade’s 420-hp, 460-lb-ft 6.2-liter V-8. Although that buys you almost a second over the quarter mile compared with regular Yukon’s 5.3-liter engine, it still feels oddly sluggish, especially when compared with the punchy EcoBoost V-6 in Ford’s Expedition. The lazy calibration of the six-speed 6L80 auto is a contributing factor.

Despite GM’s sophisticated Magnetic Ride Control shocks, the Denali XL’s ride is surprisingly edgy. The optional 22-inch wheels and tires amplified the impacts, but we found the same problem in other full-size GMs with MRC and regular 20-inch boots. The standard shocks feel better.

The Yukon XL is an undeniably compelling vehicle concept. But Cadillac’s Escalade ESV offers more overt luxury, while Chevy’s Suburban is the better value. As Evans noted, “Maybe the Denali package should be the starting point for GMCs to differentiate themselves from Chevys.”

The Navigator, like the Lincoln brand, is a frustrating mix of good and bad. Let’s start with good. Why isn’t this engine in more Ford, I mean Lincoln, products? The 380-hp, 460 lb-ft, 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 is a modern marvel. You simply don’t need a V-8 in 2015. The Navigator’s engine is the proof/pudding. Says Seabaugh, “I actually prefer the EcoBoost V-6 to the 6.2 V-8 in the Escalade. It’s powerful, refined, and torquey.” We also collectively loved the transmission calibration, which, unlike in the GM triplets, felt performance-oriented, something we think luxury buyers will appreciate.

And now the bad. Says MacKenzie, “No amount of lipstick, no matter how deftly applied, can disguise the age of the Navigator’s architecture. The body sides, the doors, the greenhouse, the narrow cabin — from certain angles it’s very clear this is an old truck.” I’d like to specifically focus on the narrow cabin, as I got my knee wedged between the door and the steering wheel. That’s certainly not luxurious in my book. It’s a particularly egregious offense for such a massive vehicle. Let’s not forget that the wiring harness on the Navigator is so old, it can’t support radar cruise control. Not cool.

You can call this part the ugly, because we also don’t like the way it looks. Lago asks, “Why does this truck look so sad?”

The comparatively diminutive MKC shows that Lincoln’s mustachioed design language can work, but — back to MacKenzie — the front of the ‘Gator is simply lipstick on an F-150. Even with independent rear suspension there’s something definitely trucklike about the way the big SUV rides.

Says Jurnecka, “The ride is pretty busy, with a lot of choppy movements.” We loaded the big Linc up with six male adults and that didn’t smooth things out. There is plenty of room in the way back for two grown men, although the same can’t be said for the middle seats.

Overall, the Navigator will serve a family of six well, but it doesn’t move the needle.

The Highlander was the first vehicle cut during SUOTY deliberations. That might come as a surprise if you read our August 2014 three-row crossover SUV Big Test, where it placed second primarily because of its competency and low 5-year cost of ownership estimates. What happened? Well, to win the calipers, a vehicle must do more than be competent. It must innovate.

The Highlander’s only lauded feature—a large and nifty storage area in the center console for electronics—was overshadowed by a number of ergonomic challenges. Things such as a slow-opening automatic liftgate or the distance the driver has to reach to adjust the stereo’s tuning knob might seem minor in isolation, but when taken together they make you wonder whether they’re the result of oversight or indifference. “The 40-percent folding side of the middle-row seat (the one easiest for entry to the third row) is on the Japanese curb side. Thanks!” said Markus.

We tested three examples of the Highlander: the hybrid, and front- and all-wheel-drive versions of the V-6. Judges expressed disappointment with the perceived cheapness of the front-drive model. Loh used the door as an example: “The black plastic interior door handles has a visible seam, the interior panel flexes against your knee during cornering, and the door slam is very tinny and hollow.” In the all-wheel-drive model, judges were disappointed with the ride quality and interior squeaks.

While the hybrid offers fuel economy improvements, Markus wondered if it was upsized for this application. “The engine never switches off, except on big coast downs. There is an EV mode, but just about any level of acceleration perceivable as such is deemed ‘excessive,’ and defeats the EV mode,” said Markus. “The dash needle goes into Power zone whenever the vehicle is adding speed on the flat, and Eco seems to be a coasting or downhill realm.”

“The new Highlander breaks no new ground, anywhere. No innovation, no leap forward, no excitement. It’s a simple SUV for undiscerning buyers, thousands of whom will probably be happy with it,” said MacKenzie.

Probably the purest, most polarizing vehicle in this year’s competition, the Volvo XC60 left no judge waffling in praise or criticism.

“The exterior design is interesting and expressive — sporty in the current Volvo idiom. The interior design is outstanding, with original combinations of forms, materials, and finishes. It looks light, contemporary, and elegant, like a furniture exhibit you’d see in a modern art museum,” said MacKenzie. Lieberman concurred. “Talk about moving needles — look at this interior! Simply, utterly gorgeous. Yes, please! All automakers should take a long, hard look at what Volvo’s done here.”

But it’s not perfect. As with many designer goods, function often takes a backseat to form, though rarely so literally. “The only problem with the interior is the rear seat is virtually useless for anyone other than small children. The Volvo has the worst packaging of any of the C-segment SUVs in this year’s field,” said MacKenzie, though he and others noted that the support and comfort of the seats, front and rear, are among the best in the business.

Our XC60 came equipped with Volvo’s new top step twin-charged Drive-E engine. Designed in-house, this 2.0-liter inline-four employs a turbo and supercharger to crank out a very believable 302 hp and 295 lb-ft of torque and 30 mpg highway fuel economy. These numbers mean the XC60 is a solid performer against its competitive set. It also feels very quick, but at a cost. “The engine surges hard at throttle tip-in — too aggressive,” noted Evans. Other editors commented on more than a bit of torque steer.

Things got worse once underway. Steering feel is unnatural at best, becoming downright gluey under spirited driving. “The steering has a strong self-centering effect and there are noticeable variations in weighting as you turn through on-center and back,” explains MacKenzie. And the ride? “Appalling.”

Volvo put a lot of effort into designing the XC60. It just didn’t seem particularly well-designed for America.

2015 Volvo XC60 T6 Drive-E

BASE PRICE

$41,825

PRICE AS TESTED

$50,075

VEHICLE LAYOUT

Front-engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door SUV

ENGINE

2.0L/302-hp/295-lb-ft turbo- and supercharged DOHC 16-valve I-4

TRANSMISSION

8-speed automatic

CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST)

4078 lb (59/41%)

WHEELBASE

109.2 in

LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT

182.8 x 74.4 x 67.4 in

0-60 MPH

6.3 sec

QUARTER MILE

14.8 sec @ 95.4 mph

BRAKING, 60-0 MPH

117 ft

LATERAL ACCELERATION

0.81 g (avg)

MT FIGURE EIGHT

27.3 sec @ 0.64 g (avg)

EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON

22/30/25 mpg

ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY

153/112 kW-hrs/100 miles

CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB

0.78 lb/mile

Finalist: Chevrolet Suburban

By: Rory Jurnecka

We Like: Large, well-trimmed cabin; handsome exterior styling.

We Don’t Like: Lazy six-speed automatic transmission.

As sport/utility buying trends continue to shift toward smaller vehicles, the Suburban at times feels like Billy the Kid in a town full of Stormtroopers. In fact, the Suburban is the longest-running continually manufactured model name in the U.S., having been in production since 1933. The simple truth is, there just aren’t that many vehicles like the Suburban left. If you need space for hauling up to nine people — yes, nine with the available front and second-row bench seats — in relative comfort, there simply aren’t many other options.

For 2015 the Suburban gets a makeover that includes sleek new styling (several judges called it the best-looking vehicle in our group), a stylish and high-quality interior, and improvements to the chassis and powertrain. Just one engine/transmission pairing is available: the new EcoTec 5.3-liter V-8 (355 hp, 383 lb-ft) mated to GM’s Hydra-Matic 6L80 six-speed auto. While the new engine was smooth and powerful enough for most of our drivers (and the near-10 percent gain in highway fuel economy is welcome), we were less impressed with the antiquated six-speed, which was sluggish and strongly favored high gears, hampering acceleration. We’re looking forward to Chevy bringing its new eight-speed to the Suburban as soon as possible.

Still, our LTZ-trim model was an impressive package, with a quieter ride than before and enough space and amenities to keep seven adults content during the drive to and from the hotel to the testing loop. With a whopping four USB ports up front, power-folding second and third rows, and ample third-row legroom for even 6-footers, the Suburban was a top pick as a SUOTY judge shuttle. Redesigned doors that don’t cut into the roofline keep wind noise down, and the LTZ spec meant we got GM’s third-gen Magnetic Ride Control system, which was met with mixed reactions from our judges.

While the Suburban impressed us enough to make the leap to our finalist round, it ultimately lacked the refinement and advancement that we expect from an SUOTY winner.

This year marks the second in a row that a Jeep has finished the runner-up on our SUOTY ballots — for 2014, it was the Grand Cherokee; for 2015, the GC’s little brother, the Cherokee. While medaling silver in back-to-back SUOTY competitions is surely bittersweet for Jeep, it’s also a sign that Chrysler-Fiat’s SUV brand is on the right track.

To nip at the heels of our winner, the Cherokee indeed proved an accomplished SUV. Our judges were most impressed with the Trailhawk’s rugged, brawny design, not to mention its legitimate Trail Rated abilities and cushy Raptor-like dynamics. Per Jurnecka, “Styling is fantastic in Trailhawk guise. Made it up the off-road hill like there was no hill — a champ in the dirt.” In terms of ride, the front-drive 2.4 Limited was deemed the most supple and luxurious of all the contenders, including the BMW X5 and Lexus NX, with Markus noting, “I’m not sure I’ve driven a better-riding SUV this year.” Further, every editor found the Cherokee’s UConnect infotainment system to be best in class. “Puts the rest of the infotainment systems to shame. It’s quick to boot and easy to control,” observed Lago.

Though the “bandwidth of the Cherokee range is second to none in the entry-level CUV segment,” per Jurnecka, a few demerits kept it from the top pedestal. The first-in-class nine-speed auto, while impressive on paper, didn’t excite on the road. As Loh observed, “Spirited driving highlights the nine-speed’s deficiencies. It bogs even in Sport mode, and Manual mode often leaves you waiting for an up- or downshift.” One of the benefits of nine speeds should be improved fuel economy, but even the front-drive 2.4’s EPA ratings of 22/31 mpg city/highway couldn’t match that of the all-wheel-drive Outback, at 25/33. Finally, in light of the rock-star Trailhawk, most judges deemed the Limited’s looks frumpy and uninspiring. And no SUV should ever wear chrome wheels.

Following two silver medals, perhaps in 2016 Jeep will bring home the gold when the compact Renegade competes. Until next year…

2014 Jeep Cherokee Limited 2.4 FWD

BASE PRICE

$29,190

PRICE AS TESTED

$32,670

VEHICLE LAYOUT

Front-engine, FWD, 5-pass, 4-door SUV

ENGINE

2.4L/184-hp/171-lb-ft SOHC 16-valve I-4

TRANSMISSION

9-speed automatic

CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST)

3754 lb (58/42%)

WHEELBASE

106.3 in

LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT

182.0 x 73.2 x 65.7 in

0-60 MPH

9.5 sec

QUARTER MILE

17.2 sec @ 80.5 mph

BRAKING, 60-0 MPH

121 ft

LATERAL ACCELERATION

0.79 g (avg)

MT FIGURE EIGHT

28.2 sec @ 0.59 g (avg)

EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON

22/31/25 mpg

ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY

153/109 kW-hrs/100 miles

CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB

0.77 lb/mile

Finalist: Lexus NX

By: Jonny Lieberman

We Like: Turbo engine, snappy transmission, sexy cabin.

We Don’t Like: Handling could be sportier, and the looks upset every other judge.

The big NX news is of course the turbocharged engine, a Lexus first that will be showing up in other Lexus products (the IS and the RC) soon. Says Kiino, “Nice new turbo engine. Very little lag, smooth, feels gutsy.”

He and others also praised the tuning of the six-speed automatic transmission, though we wonder why they didn’t bother with more gears, as the heavily targeted Audi Q5 has eight and the Range Rover Evoque has nine. Lexus says that more ratios add weight and cost. Sure, but there must be some reason (higher MPGs) that the main players in the segment ship with more gears. Also, Lexus pioneered the eight-speed automatic transmission with the IS F, and that was sporty. The six-speed decision reeks of cost cutting.

The looks were obviously polarizing, and that’s exactly the point. You don’t make your mini-ute look like a mashup of a Cylon and Predator because you want a wallflower. MacKenzie was the NX’s biggest aesthetic detractor. I wish we had room to publish everything he wrote, but this is the highlight, “Here’s a direct appeal to Akio Toyoda: Tell the guys enough with the spindle grille, already. It just doesn’t work, no matter how much your designers tweak it.” Ouch. I’ll be the nice guy and state that this is by far the best-looking spindle grille on the market. The interior is the latest interpretation of the LFA’s fighter jet cockpit. We dig it.

As for ride and handling, Lago had an awful lot to say. “Rides rougher than it should, and to no benefit as far as handling is concerned. This isn’t ‘sporty.’ The NX leaves a lot on the vehicle dynamics table. Terminal understeer and woeful ESC intervention. The 2.3-liter Lincoln schools this thing in handling and stability control tuning.” Pity we didn’t get to sample the non-F-Sport 200t, because it rides much better and doesn’t pretend to be sporty. Despite the dynamic shortcomings and, uh, unique looks, Lexus is bringing the right product at the right time into the fastest growing part of the luxury market.

Finalist: Lincoln MKC

By: Ron Kiino

We Like: 2.3 oomph, AWD handling, handsome and high-tech cabin.

We Don’t Like: Tight backseat, some cheap interior bits, only a 6A.

Entering a fast-growing, ultra-competitive segment such as the small luxury-crossover set isn’t easy — it’s akin to merging into the fast lane from a dead stop. But that’s exactly what the “Lincoln Motor Company” is aiming to do with the all-new Ford Escape-based MKC. And lucky for MKC, the LiMoCo fit it with the new 2.3L EcoBoost I-4 found in the Mustang.

Armed with the 2.3’s 285 horses and 305 lb-ft, the all-wheel-drive MKC sprinted from 0-60 in 6.5 seconds, through the quarter in 15.0 at 91.1 mph, and around the skidpad at 0.84 g. As Seabaugh noted, “This 2.3 motor is potent as hell.” Just imagine if it were paired with an eight-speed auto, à la the BMW X4. Per Lieberman: “The 2.3-liter with a great transmission could be a very compelling product.” Our 240-hp, 270-lb-ft 2.0 EB front-driver returned respectable but less impressive runs of 7.6 and 15.9 at 87.4, respectively.

The MKC’s exterior design, a blend of Lincoln heritage, Audi Q5, and Escape, received mostly rave reviews. MacKenzie, “Exterior styling is mature and pleasant. The wing grille stays the right side of parody, and the Audi Q5-style rear hatch (same style of cutlines to the side) gives the rear end graphic a broad, expansive stance.” Loh added: “Exterior is stunning. Best modern Lincoln styling to date.” Still, in profile, the MKC’s A-pillar, wheelbase, and proportions suggest the downmarket Escape. To that end, the radically penned Lexus NX does a better job concealing its fundamental roots (RAV4).

From behind the wheel, the MKC proved a legitimate luxury player. Judges were impressed with the quality of the wood, leather, and plastics as well as the clean, appealing, and uncluttered design. Still, some said the knobs felt cheap and found the infotainment screen too similar to that in a Fiesta, while all deemed the backseat too cramped for a four-door Lincoln.

MacKenzie summed up the MKC as “a meaningful attempt at a small luxury SUV.” Alas, for Lincoln, to be Sport/Utility of the Year, the MKC needed to be much more than an attempt.

Finalist: Mercedes-Benz GLA-Class

By: Christian Seabaugh

We Like: Ridiculously fun to drive; great-looking package.

We Don’t Like: Flinty ride and loud cabin.

“The GLA is proof the best way to get Americans to buy a hatchback is to jack it up and call it an SUV.” That sentence from MacKenzie perfectly sums up the Mercedes-Benz GLA. It’s little more than an A-Class hatchback with more ground clearance and some pseudo body cladding, and yet it all works, with the GLA making a very strong case for itself at Sport/Utility of the Year.

With its big rear wing, bright red paint, and giggle-inducing exhaust note, it was hard for some of us not to fall in love with the GLA45 AMG. “As good as anything I’ve ever driven down Palmer Road,” said Lieberman, “and I’ve driven an SLS Black Series, a Corvette ZR1, and an SRT Viper down Palmer.” “Holy crap, this should have been at Best Driver’s Car,” said Loh.

Others weren’t so easy to let the GLA45 into their hearts: “What am I driving?” questioned Evans, “This isn’t an SUV; it’s a hot hatch on stilts.” Jurnecka was less kind: “To think of this as an SUV is a bit of a joke … I see this thing as an expensive WRX STI.” And after liberating a front tire from its rim on its first finalist loop on gravel, the GLA45 proved itself more sports car than sport/utility vehicle.

The GLA250 was a different story off-road. With off-road mode’s loose restrictions on stability control, the GLA250 felt like a rally car on our loops. “Very happily hangs the tail out even at low speeds on gravel,” noted Markus. “Responds to the Finnish Flick well.”

The GLA250 was no slouch on-road either. “A driver’s CUV,” said Jurnecka. The GLA250 was fun to push, ripping down our road loops at velocities no SUV has the right to.

While there was little doubt among judges about the GLA’s good looks and sports car credentials, it didn’t live up to the SUOTY criteria as well as other contenders, with laggy throttle response in the default Eco drive mode, a loud cabin, rough ride, and tight accommodations.

Ultimately, the GLA looks like a car and drives like a car, so it must be a car, and while it’s more entertaining than the CLA, the GLA is no Sport/Utility of the Year.

We Don’t Like: Underpowered powertrain is coarse relative to the competition.

Based on its name, you’d be forgiven for expecting the Nissan Rogue to rival the Cherokee Trailhawk in excitement or off-road prowess. Though “exciting” isn’t a word we’d use to describe driving the Rogue, the Nissan cute-ute does offer quite a lot to get excited about.

Nissan kills it when it comes to packaging. Starting in the trunk, Nissan offers its Divide-N-Hide cargo system on the Rogue (not available with the third row). It includes two useful reconfigurable shelves that allow the Rogue’s cargo area to expand and contract as needed, with 18 different configurations. “Very cool cargo area — best aspect of the car,” said Markus. Evans agreed with his assessment: “Multi-level reconfigurable cargo floor is pretty clever; very solid little SUV.” There are 45/10/45 split-folding rear seats with a pass-through in the middle for long items. Two other players in the Rogue’s segment in this competition, the Cherokee and the CR-V, don’t have a pass-through. Those adult-friendly rear seats also slide fore and aft, boosting legroom and allowing access to the available third row.

While it’s apparent that Nissan engineers spent much of their time on the Rogue’s interior, we wish they focused a bit more on its powertrain. The Rogue’s 170-hp, 2.5-liter I-4 and CVT carry over to the new model effectively unchanged, giving the now-larger Rogue a pokey 0-60 mph time of 9.1 seconds. “Powertrain seems fine until you hit a short on-ramp, then it feels underpowered,” said Evans. “Great everywhere else.” Middling performance numbers would be a fair trade-off for miserly fuel economy figures, but according to our Real MPG team, the Rogue doesn’t exactly impress there either, with its combined rating of 23.1 RMPG falling well below the EPA’s 28 mpg combined figure. Despite its lack of grunt (and eco cred), the Rogue otherwise moves down the road rather well, with confident handling, solid off-road chops, and good ride quality. It just doesn’t move the needle enough to come away with the calipers.

2014 Nissan Rogue SL AWD

BASE PRICE

$30,490

PRICE AS TESTED

$32,795

VEHICLE LAYOUT

Front-engine, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door SUV

ENGINE

2.5L/170-hp/175-lb-ft DOHC 16-valve I-4

TRANSMISSION

Cont. variable auto

CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST)

3633 lb (57/43%)

WHEELBASE

106.5 in

LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT

182.3 x 72.4 x 66.3 in

0-60 MPH

9.1 sec

QUARTER MILE

17.0 sec @ 83.2 mph

BRAKING, 60-0 MPH

118 ft

LATERAL ACCELERATION

0.77 g (avg)

MT FIGURE EIGHT

28.9 sec @ 0.58 g (avg)

EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON

25/32/28 mpg

ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY

135/105 kW-hrs/100 miles

CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB

0.70 lb/mile

Finalist: Porsche Macan

Were this a competition to determine which crossover would make the best factory rally car, the Porsche Macan would’ve likely walked away with the win. “I’d like to have one of these in the 959 Rothmans rally livery — complete with knobby tires,” exclaimed Loh after a stint in the Macan S around our off-road loop.

It was even more impressive on the tarmac. “I shouldn’t like this. I don’t want to like this. But I like this. A lot,” said Lago. “It’s too tall, the engine’s too far forward of the front axle, but, man, this is good to drive.” “Such poise, sure-footedness and locked-down body motion control in Sport +,” Markus said of the base Macan S. The Macan’s performance figures were impressive, with the 340-hp S hitting 60 mph in 4.9 seconds, its V-6 singing sweetly along the way. It lapped our figure eight in an impressive 26.2 seconds at 0.71 g average. The 400-hp Turbo was faster still, hitting 60 mph in a competition-best 4.2 seconds and lapping the figure eight in 25.0 seconds at 0.78 g average — a tie for first with the Mercedes GLA45 AMG.

Not only does the Macan drive like a Porsche, but it looks and feels like one, too. The exterior is a mix of 918, 911, and Cayenne design cues, and the superb interior manages to bring both luxury and sportiness to an even cheaper (for Porsche) price point. “I love the 918-derived details: the four LEDs on the headlamps and the steering wheel,” said a very obviously smitten Lago. “The rear-three quarter looks great too, especially those taillamps.”

The Macan is exactly what you’d expect from Porsche: quick, luxurious, capable on and off-road, and truly a sport SUV, not just a sporty one. That would ultimately prove to be the Macan’s undoing. “I guess the issue is that it doesn’t really move the needle forward,” said Lieberman. “It’s sort of exactly what you’d expect from a small Porsche SUV.” That, a tight backseat, and questionable value in the face of the closely related (5 grand cheaper) Audi SQ5 kept the Macan from taking home the calipers this year like its Cayenne big brother did a few years ago.

The casual observer might not realize that there’s anything new with the 2015 Subaru Outback. New yet subtle bodywork hides the fact that its new platform means it’s bigger in every dimension. The few design warts of last year’s car, such as the needlessly angry headlights, have been calmed. The Outback looks normal, inoffensive. “Nothing about the car stands out, but sometimes it’s best not to shout. Just do,” said MacKenzie.

A fresh interior design, coupled with increased passenger and cargo volume, gives the Outback a more upscale appearance. “The wood in here is more believable than the stuff in the King Ranch,” said Markus of the 3.6R model. A new infotainment system with clear graphics and easy-to-use controls makes a dramatic improvement over last year’s version, though it’s still no Chrysler Uconnect.

In terms of driving, the Outback packages good ride quality, handling, and steering with 8.7 inches of ground clearance that rivals other, more serious SUVs. Of the two models we tested, our well-optioned 2.5i was most appealing. Though noticeably more powerful, we found it difficult to justify a 3.6R when considering fuel economy and the features available with the 2.5i. Subaru must agree, as it anticipates the 2.5i will be the most popular. Another thing to be happy about: 25/33 mpg city/highway from an all-wheel-drive SUV.

A CVT-only lineup brings many benefits to acceleration in our testing and fuel economy, but we question Subaru’s choice to have the transmission simulate stepped gear ratios. The resulting fake shifts and surges feel odd, and pale in comparison to the CVT in Honda‘s CR-V. A minor blemish, surely, but enough to dock points off the Engineering Excellence score.

The Outback remains the easy-to-recommend, highly capable vehicle that won SUOTY in 2010. This mild refresh adds welcome features, but the Outback doesn’t exceed in Engineering Excellence or Performance of Intended Function more than the last one.

Share this article in:

We’ve Temporarily Removed Comments

As part of our ongoing efforts to make MotorTrend.com better, faster, and easier for you to use, we’ve temporarily removed comments as well as the ability to comment. We’re testing and reviewing options to possibly bring comments back. As always, thanks for reading MotorTrend.com.